Proof of Immortality, VI

[Mojo]

IIRC, Jabba claims that souls exist under his OOFLam as well - they're just not immortal. I could be wrong, but Jabba is liable to make any damn fool claim at all and reverse himself the next week.

He says that souls don't exist under "OOFLam", but contradicts this by factoring them into his assessment of the likelihood of his existence under "OOFLam".

His argument on this point seems to be that if he assumes in his premises that "OOFLam" is wrong, he can prove that it is wrong.

 

[Belz...]

- I still think that I can present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H). I'll put this off for the moment.

For the moment? How many more years before you actually support your claims?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I still do believe it myself, do have some more ideas as to how to strengthen my case and do believe that a less skeptical audience would tend to "see what I mean."

That's just another way of demanding that your audience start by accepting everything you say unquestioningly, and that if they don't agree with you before you present your arguments then they're not playing fair when they point out your arguments don't make sense.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I still think that I can present a credible and supportive figure for P(E|~H). I'll put this off for the moment.
- As noted before, I tend to agree with you about not being able to better convey my 'apartness' to you and your colleagues than I already have -- though, I still do believe it myself, do have some more ideas as to how to strengthen my case and do believe that a less skeptical audience would tend to "see what I mean."
- I'll be back.

- So, anyway.
- Seems to me that the most likely scientific explanation for "selves" would go like this.

- Some sort of physical combination yields an emergent property that we call "life." (So far, we humans are not able to cook life from scratch.) Life, at least at some complexity(?), seems to yield a bit of consciousness (maybe an emergent property itself?). Consciousness would seem to intrinsically involve a brand new "self" -- consciousness would seem to create a brand new self. "Create" and "brand new" are the key words.
- How do you disagree so far?

 

[jond]

- So, anyway.
- Seems to me that the most likely scientific explanation for "selves" would go like this.

- Some sort of physical combination yields an emergent property that we call "life." (So far, we humans are not able to cook life from scratch.) Life, at least at some complexity(?), seems to yield a bit of consciousness (maybe an emergent property itself?). Consciousness would seem to intrinsically involve a brand new "self" -- consciousness would seem to create a brand new self. "Create" and "brand new" are the key words.
- How do you disagree so far?

Why do you need to include "brand new"? Why do you continually to refer to a "self" as a separate entity? The materialist model does not include the self as a separate entity.

Consciousness GENERATES an ongoing sense of self would be far more appropriate. When you are unconscious, what happens to your sense of self?

 

[The Sparrow]

... consciousness would seem to create a brand new self. "Create" and "brand new" are the key words.
- How do you disagree so far?

Pressing the gas pedal on my volkswagon creates a brand new going 60 mph.

We see what you are doing. By using words like create and brand new you are trying to build a numerator and denominator again. There are infinite possible selves (as if they are a thing) as your denominator and the instantiation of a particular self is the numerator. Then you will claim 1 over infinity = 0 therefore no individual self exist, etc etc, therefore selves must be recycled (to get rid of the infinite denominator.

By that VERY SAME REASONING, a volkswagon cannot go 60mph because there are an infinite potential 'going 60mph'.

You are just repeating yourself again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

consciousness would seem to create a brand new self. "Create" and "brand new" are the key words.
- How do you disagree so far?

I think you agree that a sense of self is an emergent property, not a "thing" severable from the organism.

All the well-educated and honest disputants are agreeing to it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- So, anyway.

Oh I'm sorry are we slowing down the pace of you not making a point after 5 years?

Seems to me that the most likely scientific explanation for "selves" would go like this.

Jabba you have proven you have zero grasp of what science is.

Some sort of physical combination yields an emergent property that we call "life."

A love how the entire concepts of biology, chemisty, neurology, etc that have been explained to you a dozen times get shrugged off with a passive aggressive "some sort of."

"Create" and "brand new" are the key words.

Already explained to you. Stop being rude.

 

[JayUtah]

How do you disagree so far?

At the part where you say the words "emergent property" but are still quite clearly referring to what you think is a separate entity, such that words like "create" and "brand new" apply to them.

You're doing exactly today what I took you to task for yesterday. You aren't changing the concepts of your argument; you're just trying to find new words to hide those concepts behind. The concepts of your argument are broken. We understand what you mean and are trying to say, so don't just come back with the same old "I'm having communication difficulties" excuse to simply repeat your tired old claims. Fix the concepts in your proof.

 

[JayUtah]

That's just another way of demanding that your audience start by accepting everything you say unquestioningly, and that if they don't agree with you before you present your arguments then they're not playing fair when they point out your arguments don't make sense.

Exactly the same tactic he used in the Shroud thread. He really is a one-trick pony. He threatened to stall the thread entirely, and not present his evidence, until his critics agreed his evidence was valid. We already knew what his evidence was, which is to say we already knew he had nothing more than speculation and gossip. And his argument there devolved into rants about how he'd lost the debate, but only because his critics hadn't played fair.

There, as well as here, he claimed his arguments would have more traction among an allegedly less entrenched audience. I bit; I asked him to show me that audience, and the best he could come up with was a reading list from one of the standard Shroudie web sites. That was his "audience." And that was years ago, back before he learned to be more guarded when alluding to his dislike of skepticism.

When I speak about patterns of fringe argumentation, it's because they really do happen.

 

[Jabba]

Why do you need to include "brand new"? Why do you continually to refer to a "self" as a separate entity? The materialist model does not include the self as a separate entity.
Consciousness GENERATES an ongoing sense of self would be far more appropriate. When you are unconscious, what happens to your sense of self?

jond,
- Yes it does. According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would look like me, but it wouldn't actually be me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that that "self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place. Those two selves are not the same -- they are separate entities.

 

[jond]

jond,
- Yes it does. According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the subject would look like me, but it wouldn't actually be me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that that "self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place. Those two selves are not the same -- they are separate entities.

- We've been down this road many many times. How, specifically would it be different? There would be two identical Jabbas. Just as there would be two identical Mt Rainiers. How would you or the duplicate know which is which?

- No, the materialist model indicates that the self is nothing other than an ongoing process that your brain does. What happens to the self when you damage your amygdala and inferotemporal cortex?

May I suggest, again, reading up on what scientists have learned about these things? VS Ramachandran's "The Tell Tale Brain" is a great read, you might find it interesting.

 

[JayUtah]

...the new life would look like me, but it wouldn't actually be me. I would not be brought back to life.

No such thing as "the new life" in materialism, Jabba. And once again you're simply spraying the same long-debunked generalities that do almost nothing to convey any sort of precision of meaning. As your critics have said, you are just endlessly repeating yourself. You have no argument that has not already been thoroughly refuted.

The materialist model accepts that that "self" did exist, but would not return.

Exactly the opposite. Self-awareness is a property in materialism. It is exhibited any time the entity exists for which self-awareness is a property.

Another self would take its place. Those two selves are not the same -- they are separate entities.

The self is not any kind of entity under materialism, Jabba. We've spent literally months telling you this on a daily basis. The self is a property. It is not enumerable. It is not severable.

 

[RoboTimbo]

jond,
- Yes it does. According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would look like me, but it wouldn't actually be me. I would not be brought back to life.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

- The materialist model accepts that that "self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place. Those two selves are not the same -- they are separate entities.

Are you saying that the sense of self is a separate "thing" rather than a process in the materialist model?

 

[Jabba]

- We've been down this road many many times. How, specifically would it be different? There would be two identical Jabbas. Just as there would be two identical Mt Rainiers. How would you or the duplicate know which is which?

- No, the materialist model indicates that the self is nothing other than an ongoing process that your brain does. What happens to the self when you damage your amygdala and inferotemporal cortex?

May I suggest, again, reading up on what scientists have learned about these things? VS Ramachandran's "The Tell Tale Brain" is a great read, you might find it interesting.

- I wouldn't be brought back to life in the self produced by the replica DNA. That's the difference. And that is probably the best I can do in trying to communicate what I perceive to be the difference.

 

[jond]

- I wouldn't be brought back to life in the self produced by the replica DNA. That's the difference. And that is probably the best I can do in trying to communicate what I perceive to be the difference.

The duplicate would think it's you. It would have all the thoughts and memories you've had up to the point of duplication. What, specifically, is it missing? If you can't answer it, it's because there is nothing missing.

 

[jond]

Jabba:
- is the time your father told you to never give up part of your "self"?
- is the first time you kissed your wife part of your "self"?
- if not, what exactly is included in your "self"?

 

[JayUtah]

I wouldn't be brought back to life in the self produced by the replica DNA. That's the difference.

"Brought back to life" is ambiguous. We've asked you not to use this ambiguous language to obscure what your critics have laborious established as precise conceptualization. That you are deliberately returning to it in the guise of "new" argumentation is just further proof that you are out of steam.

Life, as materialism defines it, is simply a name for a set of biochemical properties. An organism that exhibits some form of metabolism has life. In higher organisms, self-awareness is also exhibited. When the organism breaks down to the point that emergent properties are no longer possible, both life and self-awareness disappear.

And that is probably the best I can do in trying to communicate what I perceive to be the difference.

The difference does not exist in materialism. It exists only in your imagination, as yet another misplaced concept you're trying to foist onto materialism. It's a soul, Jabba. You're trying to say that materialism doesn't reproduce your soul. There's no use dancing around what you're trying to say. We all understand it. You even admit it in your more lucid moments: you're really talking about a soul but you want to use different words so that it's not so readily apparent that you're begging the question.

Unfortunately for you, materialism doesn't conceptualize life or self-awareness your way at all. If this is the best you can do, then please concede defeat and apologize for wasting everyone's time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I wouldn't be brought back to life in the self produced by the replica DNA. That's the difference. And that is probably the best I can do in trying to communicate what I perceive to be the difference.

Are you saying that two different organisms will have two separate processes? Like two identical Volkswagens can be going identical 60 mph?

You seem to be agreeing that a sense of self is a process just like going 60 mph.

 

[godless dave]

jond,
- Yes it does. According to the materialist model, if someone reproduced my DNA after my death, the new life would look like me, but it wouldn't actually be me. I would not be brought back to life.
- The materialist model accepts that that "self" did exist, but would not return. Another self would take its place. Those two selves are not the same -- they are separate entities.

Because the brains are separate entities. The duplicate body, including the brain, would be equally "brand new".

You are trying to complicate a simple concept. If you duplicated Mount Rainier you would have a "brand new" mountain, not one mountain in two locations.